Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: Judging recruits and classes

  1. #16
    Golden Bear heartofthebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ben Lomond, a small town outside of Santa Cruz in the mountains
    Posts
    5,324
    I think what Dykes means when he talks about getting the true student-athlete to Cal because of "fit" is that some of the 4 and 5 star OLs that went to Stanford sure would have fit well at Cal. Instead of comparing ourselves to BSU and OSU, I would hope Dykes has his target set on guys interested in academic institutions like furd. There are plenty of 4 and 5 star players interested in furd these days. Those guys used to come to Cal. Austin Hooper, come on down.

  2. #17
    Loyal Bear mbBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bala Cynwyd, Pa. (near Philly)
    Posts
    4,375
    Not sure why you would think Wes Welker is not one of the higher rated receivers in the league. You moved up to an NFL discussion, so now you aren't talking about raw numbers/potential, but rather highly skilled individuals such as Welker.

    Are there highly rated HS guys that might not work with Sonny and Co.? That's the key question? Okay, yes. Just like, are there guys that Sonny and Co. think are better than the folks making the rankings? Yes. But, I want to see the best players at Cal, period. If he is doing more with less, you can totally be up in my face and others as well.

    Besides, the only "real" ranking of recruiting classes is on-field performance/wins-losses, I don't care who you get. For example-great, a top 15-20 class, and no offensive linemen recruited or developed-means nothing to me if you are going to lose the game in the trenches...

  3. #18
    I wouldn't look at the rating of a player as a definite measure of success, its just the best method of evaluation that scouting agencies have at hand. They don't have the time/resources to completely evaluate most players, they just go off of highlight tapes or an occasional live game. They also have the camps (like the Elite 11, etc.) to see these kids, but I think we all know that doing well at one of those isn't the best indication of future performance.

    The ratings are almost inherently unpredictable, especially if you are using them to project what a high school player will achieve after three/four years of college coaching. Some 5 star players plateau immediately, and some 3 star guys develop mentally and physically and surpass the 5 stars, but its nearly impossible to predict this accurately.

    The ratings also don't account for coaching, some guys get into a system with a good coach (Riley for example) and become significantly better players. Look at Oregon's classes in the past few years, aside from a few prospects (De'Anthony Thomas-5, Colt Lyerla-5, Lache Seastrunk-5), they are mostly middling 4 stars and 3 stars. Despite that, the guys he goes for fit his system (speed/athleticism) and outperform their rankings. Kenjon Barner was a 3 star, and Marcus Mariota was their lowest ranked recruit in the 2011 class with 3-stars (Rivals), but I think we would all kill to get Mariota under center for Cal. So I don't see an issue with Cal becoming one of those "system" teams, if Dykes knows what he is doing it won't matter.

    I'm sure we can snag a few 5 star players if we do well, just by virtue of having a CA & TX pipeline we could land some, but I wouldn't peg our future on recruiting rankings based on a scout service.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by 6bear6 View Post
    That's Malcolm Gladwells take on success. It is to some extent a matter of luck. He was talking about when hockey players were born - jan, feb, and march and therefore are ahead their peers who are born Oct, Nov, and Dec in maturity and its reflected in how they are able to play. They thus get more attention from coaches and the others are left behind.

    I think OSU and Boise succeed due to the easier academic requirements at those two schools. A lot more focus on football with fewer intrusions. But it is less prestigious to attend those schools than a Cal, Furd or UCLA. It matters.
    http://www.famousbirthdays.com/profe...keyplayer.html

  5. #20
    I assume Marcus was only a 3 star because he was from Hawaii, and thus did not get the notice that recruits in a place like Texas mght get.

  6. #21
    more important than star rankings though is what other schools does the player have offers from. although if a player has an impressive offer list then it usually does correlate with star rankings

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by RealDrew2 View Post
    I assume Marcus was only a 3 star because he was from Hawaii, and thus did not get the notice that recruits in a place like Texas mght get.
    Exactly, so the accuracy of the rankings often comes down to how much time people have spent evaluating them. Then again, does anyone remember that Jimmy Clausen guy? I think if Rivals could have given a player 7 stars they would have given it to him, and he was a gigantic flop in college and the NFL. Apparently you need more than a flawless throwing motion and arm strength to be a QB, who knew?

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by gobears725 View Post
    more important than star rankings though is what other schools does the player have offers from. although if a player has an impressive offer list then it usually does correlate with star rankings
    Look at one of our targets, OL Aaron Cochran, based on Scout.

    3 Star OT, he has practically the entire Pac-12, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Purdue after him. I'm pretty sure coaches know more about these guys when compared to scouting services.

  9. #24

    Star Inflation

    Don't overlook the tendency of players from 'known' or successful high school programs tend to have 'grade/star' inflation as well. Large schools in an urban evironment usually have higher number of stars for their players too. Cal is full of 'elite 11' qb's who can't find the field and O linemen that have impressive pedigrees (ratings) that are just almost average at best, Tedford forgot that winning programs are not founded on undersized db's & receivers and slow witted 'elite' qb's. I'd take Oregon States O line any day over the Bear's underachievers. Hopefully Dykes will get rid of the 'dead wood' in that group and find players who deserve a scholarship.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BAyers3 View Post
    Look at one of our targets, OL Aaron Cochran, based on Scout.

    3 Star OT, he has practically the entire Pac-12, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, and Purdue after him. I'm pretty sure coaches know more about these guys when compared to scouting services.
    He is a good example of what I mentioned on another thread - offensive linemen are very difficult to evaluate. He is 6ft. 8, 350 pounds. I just watched about 50 plays of this kid in action and did not see him up against a single D1 caliber recruit. He is huge. He has a good stance and for his size, decent feet - not great feet. He has a habit of standing up every now and then but that can be corrected and you can go on and on. Some power will take him as a project because of his size and okay feet, but you will not know much about his heart till he lines up in a college practice because he has probably never been challenged. One thing to note - he does not exhibit a mean streak against hs competition.

    When you see linemen like this, think Christian Westermann sp? at Auburn. Top Ten recruit. Played no one in high school. Huge kid. Was overwhelmed by level of competition. I don't think he has started a game yet and has been moved to guard. Some similarities between this kid's competition in hs and Westermann's.
    Last edited by slotright20; 12-26-2012 at 08:06 PM.

  11. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by slotright20 View Post
    He is a good example of what I mentioned on another thread - offensive linemen are very difficult to evaluate. He is 6ft. 8, 350 pounds. I just watched about 50 plays of this kid in action and did not see him up against a single D1 caliber recruit. He is huge. He has a good stance and for his size, decent feet - not great feet. He has a habit of standing up every now and then but that can be corrected and you can go on and on. Some power will take him as a project because of his size and okay feet, but you will not know much about his heart till he lines up in a college practice because he has probably never been challenged. One thing to note - he does not exhibit a mean streak against hs competition.

    When you see linemen like this, think Christian Westermann sp? at Auburn. Top Ten recruit. Played no one in high school. Huge kid. Was overwhelmed by level of competition. I don't think he has started a game yet and has been moved to guard. Some similarities between this kid's competition in hs and Westermann's.
    Yes, its even worse than evaluating guys in college. Some physically gifted kids play nobody, and some get lost in the shuffle of big name schools/divisions.

    This is why I tend to ignore HS stats, even for record breaking guys. I always see scouts drooling about how some QB threw for 6000 yards and 75TD in one season, but the kid is in like D-VI playing nobody in an all passing offense.

  12. #27
    I just want the coaching staff to get the best players possible for their system. If we could get all 5 star prospects that would be awesome but I would think that with the state of the program, we can manage to get 1-2 FIVE star guys a year, 8-10 FOUR Stars and the rest would be 3 stars with a sprinkle of sleeper 2 stars.

  13. #28
    True Blue Golden Bear BeachyBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Hawthorne, CA
    Posts
    7,777
    I agree stars aren't everything. An example would be some of our well-rated classes where there were plenty of stars and our team still has massive holes in key areas (OLine), because of lack of balance.

    Still, the star rankings are a good barometer, especially in a conference like the Pac12. We're down this year in recruiting. Go figure. Worst season in 11 years and a coaching change will do that. Given all that, it's amazing we're even doing this well.

    Who knows, maybe Dykes & Co really are the amazing recruiters people say they are and they'll finish strong. But our lower numbers this year aren't because we're recruiting for "fit," it's because our options are more limited, thanks to a lousy season.

    People point to Morra at UCLA, but keep in mind Neuheisal could always recruit, that was his strong suit. So even with a so-so season and a coaching change the bRuins had recruiting momentum and Morra simply had to close the deal. It's a little tougher for the Bears - our team did considerably worse on the field and the wheels started falling off the recruiting wagon a year ago. So Dykes might be the best recruiter in the nation and we'll still have a relatively poor class because all the momentum is working against him this year.

    If this recruiting class ends up being better than 4th in the P12 North (yes, by "stars"), Dykes is doing something right. Gotta be realistic about this.

    I'd expect any recriting bump from Dykes to happen next season.

  14. #29
    funny how our best WR, harper was a 3 star that was basically begging for a cal offer and cal slow played him til the end--lucky we got him still

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachyBear View Post
    I agree stars aren't everything. An example would be some of our well-rated classes where there were plenty of stars and our team still has massive holes in key areas (OLine), because of lack of balance.

    Still, the star rankings are a good barometer, especially in a conference like the Pac12. We're down this year in recruiting. Go figure. Worst season in 11 years and a coaching change will do that. Given all that, it's amazing we're even doing this well.

    Who knows, maybe Dykes & Co really are the amazing recruiters people say they are and they'll finish strong. But our lower numbers this year aren't because we're recruiting for "fit," it's because our options are more limited, thanks to a lousy season.

    People point to Morra at UCLA, but keep in mind Neuheisal could always recruit, that was his strong suit. So even with a so-so season and a coaching change the bRuins had recruiting momentum and Morra simply had to close the deal. It's a little tougher for the Bears - our team did considerably worse on the field and the wheels started falling off the recruiting wagon a year ago. So Dykes might be the best recruiter in the nation and we'll still have a relatively poor class because all the momentum is working against him this year.

    If this recruiting class ends up being better than 4th in the P12 North (yes, by "stars"), Dykes is doing something right. Gotta be realistic about this.

    I'd expect any recriting bump from Dykes to happen next season.
    hey, don't look now, we're already at #6 in the Pac by avg. star rating @ 3.15.

    ($C is sitting pretty up top at 4.31)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •